Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2010/001072
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 7 June 2011
Date of decision : 7 June 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri Jwala Prasad
Chandi Pd. Lane, Mohalla Jogsar,
PO Buranath, Distt - Bhagalpur,
Bihar.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Punjab National Bank,
Jharkhand Circle, Circle Office,
Main Rd. Ranchi.
The Appellant was present along with Shri N.N. Chaudhary.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri A.K. Patro was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard this case through video conferencing. The Appellant was
present in the Bhagalpur studio of the NIC along with his representative. The
Respondent was present in the Ranchi studio. We heard their submissions.
3. The Appellant had requested for some information on 22.4.2010
regarding the name of the Deputy General Manager who had passed the order
and disposed of the appeal filed by him on 4.8.08 against the Chief Manager’s
order of punishment dated 10.7.08. He also requested for a certified copy of the
order, if any, passed by the then Dy. G.M. in the appeal filed by the applicant as
stated above. The CPIO provided the desired information. Not satisfied with the
information provided by the CPIO, he had preferred an appeal. It is not clear if
the Appellate Authority had passed any order though.
CIC/SM/A/2010/001072
4. After carefully considering the submissions of both the parties and the
facts of the case, we do not see any reason to interfere with the decision of the
CPIO. He had truthfully provided the desired information within the stipulated
time period. All that the Appellant wanted was the name and designation of the
Deputy General Manager who had passed the order on his appeal and a copy
of that order. The CPIO had provided both the pieces of information. The
Appellant claimed that the copy of the order provided did not seem to have
been approved by Shri Moitro, the then Deputy General Manager. On the other
hand, the Respondent submitted that this was a photocopy of the original
record from the relevant file. Merely on the suspicion of the Appellant that the
signature on the order did not appear to be that of the Deputy General Manager
concerned, the CPIO cannot be directed to produce any new piece of record or
document. His responsibility is to provide truthfully whatever information exists.
If the Appellant has any reason to believe that this order had not been signed
by the right person, he is free to approach any other competent authority
including a court of law for further relief. Under the Right to Information (RTI)
Act, there is nothing more he can be provided.
5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this
Commission.
CIC/SM/A/2010/001072
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2010/001072